The Portland daily press., 1887-11-09
THE BELcHER WILL.
Trying to Overthrow MRS. Belcher's
Request to Bates College.

Undue Influence on the TestarrIx the
Principal Allegation.
Disappointed Heirs Struggling for
Some of the Shekeis.
The Belcher will case came up in the Su-
preme Court, before Judge Walton, at 10
o'clock yesterday morning by special assign
ment. As this case is one coming from
neighboring county, aud is one exciting
great deal of interest, little explanation
relative to its origin and its present standing
m court may not be ont of place.
The lste Sarah S. Belcher, formerly resi-
dent of Pennington, Franklin county, died
September q, 1886, at the age of about 81
years. leaving an estate appraised at about
S51, 900, but claimed to be worth more At
the November term, 1856, the will of the de-
ceased was presented for probate in the Pro-
bate Court of Franklin. By this will the
testatrix gave to each of her two sisters the
sum of $500 and also all her household fur
niture in equal shares; to Nathan f. Backus.
a nephew, the sum of $780, and tile rest of
her estate to Bates College. The will was
dated in 1877, over nine years before the
death of the testatrix, and attached thereto
was codicil, bearing date six years later
than the date of the will, in which the testa
trix revoked the legacy to one sister. who
had died in the meantime, but making no
other disposition of her share. The heirs
appeared in the Probate Court at Farming
ton and contested the will upon the ground
of incapacity of the testatrix, and upon the
ground OF undue influence claimed to have
been exercised by DR.. Cheney in obtaining
the will. The contestants cross-examined
the witnesses to the will and codicil. and
called as witnesses DR.. Cheney and Miss
Higgins, who had been for many years the
companion and assistant of the testatrix
The will was admitted to probate by decree
OF the Probate Court at Pennington. and
the heirs took an appeal to the Supreme
Court of Probate, which was entered at the
March term, 1887, when, on behalf of DR..
Cheney, the executor, and Bates College, the
principal legatee, it was moved to transfer
the case from franklin to some other county
upon the ground that by reason of the effect
OF the Will to exempt the property from tax
alton in giving it to the college, there was a
local interest and prejudice adverse to the
will in Pennington. The motion was re-
sisted, and the presiding justice before whom
1t was presented held. as matter of law,
that he had no authority to send the case to
another county. To this ruling exception
was taken, and presented to the Law Court
at Portland in July last, that court deciding
that there was power in proper case to re-
move the cause to another county for trial.
At the September term, last, issues of fact
were framed for the jury and filed, and
Judge Foster, then presiding. decided to re-
move the case to another county, and ordered
it to Cumberland for trial at the October
term. On the first day of the October term
the case was specially assigned for yester-
day.
The issues of fact framed for the jury are
as follows
Was Sarah S. Belcher, the testatrix. of
sound mind at the time she executed the said
will and testament?
Was said testatrix induced to make and
execute said instrument by fraud or undue
influence?
Was Sarah s. Belcher, the testatrix. of
sound mind at the time she executed the said
instrument which purports to be codici to
her last will and testament?
Was the said testatrix induced to make
and execute said instrument purpOrting to
be cOdicl by fraud or undue Influence?
Was said will duly executed?
Was said codicil duly executed?
There was good attendance at the OPEN
ing of the court. After the disposition of
several interlocutory matters, the court an
that No. 2s2, the probate appeal.
was in order and that counsel might proceed
If ready. There were no challenges by
either side, and the jury remains as consti-
tuted at the beginning of the term, as fol-
lows:
Bibber HaIpswell; John T. Fellows, Windham;
Nathaniel II. Henderson, Scarboro Augustus H.
win Ingalls, Bridgton; Izatus " Lang Deering;
Fred ID. Larrabee, New Gloucester; George W.
leighton, Westbrook; Amos Marston. Falmouth;
James NJ Sanborn, Sebago.
5. Clifford Belcher, Esq, then opened the
case for the proponents. He explained to
the jury the nature of the appeal and read
tbs statute relative to the requisites neces-
sary to enable person to make a will and
the rules which must be observed in its exc
cution. Now in this case Oren B. Cheney,
the presidene and the trustees of Bates Col
lege, the principal legatee, had brought this
instrument into the Probate Court of Frank
lin county, alleging that it was the last will
and testament of Sarah S. Belcher, late of
Farmington, deceased. A hearing was had
upon the question of the validity of the will.
as to whether it had been executed in ac-
cordance with the statute; whether the tes-
tatrix was OF sound and disposing mind and
was twenty-one years of age. All these
questions had been submitted to the Judge
Of Probate for Franklin county at the last
December term, and the Judge of Probate
hal found that the will was duly executed:
that Mrs. Belcher was of sound and dispos-
Ing mind. that she was twenty-one. years of
age. and he accordingly approved and set up
the will as her last will and testament. Now.
that would have been all that was necessary
to be done had not some one interested in the
will taken an appeal. Certain of the heirs
did appeal, and have now brought this case
to this court, sitting as the Supreme Court
Of Probate, for final determination. Coun-
sci then read to the jury the reasons for ap-
peal, in substance, as follows:
Flrst-That said written instruments are
not the last will and testament and codicil
thereto of said Sarah S. Belcher.
Second-That said instruments pu1port-
ing to be will and codicil were not legally
executed.
Third-That the persons who subscribed
SAID instruments as witnesses, did not sub-
scribe the same, or either of them, at the re-
quest OF Sarah 5. Belcher, nor in her pres
ence, nor in the presence OF each other.
Fourth-That said Sarah S. Belcher was
not Of sound mind at the time OF executing
said instruments or either of them.
Fltth-That for long time before, and at
the date of the execution of the said instru-
ments, the said Sarah s. Belcher had become.
and was so feeble and impaired in mind and
that she was legally incompetent TO
make her last will and testament or codicil
thereto.
Sixth-Thatfsa Sarah S. Belcher was in
fiuenced in the making an execution of said
Instruments by an unfounded and unreason-
able prejudice against her heirs-at-law.
The seventh, eighth, ninth. tenth, eleventh
and twelfth, allege that the testatrix was of
weak mind and body at the time of the exc
cution OF both said instruments; that she
was under the control of certain persons i'm
that she was unduly influenced in
the making of said instruments by Oren b.
Cheney, and by other persons and influences
than her own mind; that she was influenced
by certain insane delusiOns which rendered
her legally incompetent, and insane delu-
sions and groundless beliefs respecting her
heirs-at-law which controlled her in the dis
position of her property.
Nh.t 81, L.